Russia's greatest leverage was Europe needing their gas, and eventually agreeing to stop supporting Ukraine in order to get the gas turned back on.
Now if the pipelines are destroyed, no matter how cold and angry citizens in the EU get, EU leadership has no reason to give in to Russian since that now won't get the gas turned back on.
If anything, this points to Ukraine or the US doing it.
This is not an act in the same level as the Ukraine-Russia war. This is a very top level geopolitical attack. This appears to be in international waters so it will be interesting when forensic results are published.
It can not possibly be in Russia's interest. They could easily nix NS2 at source. And now, even if diplomacy or desperation brings Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine, NS2 is out of commission for a long time. Does not compute.
US and UK certainly did not want NS2 and Biden did promise to "end it" if Russia invaded Ukraine. And the same day a Polish pipeline opens. But this is exceptionally risky if forensics turns up evidence that points to them. For one, it's an act of war against a fellow NATO member (Germany) and Russia; two, it sets a precedent that an island nation such as UK (with a lot of strategic pipes running in and out of it under Atlantic) can ill afford. So the risk factor seems to argue against that (though motive and who-benefits are clearly there).
Germany? It is possible that German deep state is not united. There are Atlantists and those who assert that German and Russian coexistence is optimal. The former faction could have done this to basically close that temptation/option to German government.
So that last group is imo the most likely culprit. [Honest question: if CIA acts covertly with say German special services (and not telling the guy in DC, you know, "need to know" and all that /g) and they do this, does that technically mean US committed an act of war or only CIA?]
p.s. whoever did this, it is a great advertisement for LNG delivered by ship escorted by blue water navies. This event just showed that gaspipelines are not and can not be strategically reliable energy conduits. They are trivially taken out of commission and repair (even if possible) will require great deal of time and resources to complete.
> Germany? It is possible that German deep state is not united. There are Atlantists and those who assert that German and Russian coexistence is optimal. The former faction could have done this to basically close that temptation/option to German government.
It eliminates a potential threat to the present Germany government; their rivals promising to turn the gas back on if they're put in power.
I think it was the Russians trying to sow discord and distrust within the western allies. Nobody was going to use this pipeline in the near future anyway, so there is no immediate cost for Russia. If there really should be a lifting of the sanctions then there would be enough time to repair the pipeline....done and paid by the germans.
As I mentioned this, or other variants I've seen being posted in twitter, with Russia doing this does not compute.
A kilometer wide gas bubble on surface indicates substantial damage. I think it safe to assume that sea water in pipe further damages an additional length of pipeline. German government (or any future one with surprise ala Italy) no longer has the option of giving in to economic and social pressures and making up with Russia before this winter. That option is gone. Russia would be monumentally stupid to lose that option. That was a negotiation card! This is what NS going bye bye means.
Someone mentioned elsewhere that this is the response to the referendums that RF just held. This somehow sounds right.
Generally don't like to be pessimistic, but this action (whoever did it does not matter, unless some random terror group) indicates that whoever did it has already determined that there will be war. [The real thing not the far away affair on social media] They know this but they are not going to announce it to us until absolutely necessary. There is no way there can be global peace after powers start destroying infrastructure at this level. There will be a contest of strength (we're past the will part) after which pipelines and satellites will once again be safe.
p.s. in case it is not clear, I've changed my opinion a bit in this reply. "Risks" may not be relevant because it is understood (and this action was basically a turn in the game with an escalation) that there is going to be, has to be, a showdown. There will be war.
Germany has enough gas for the winter and given the current sentiment I dont think there is any chance before spring/summer of any accommodation with Russia. I guess Russia REALLY needs to break up the (mostly) united western alliance to reduce arms and financial support for Ukraine.
Paying for this with some temporary broken pipeline that wouldnt have been used anyway is most likely acceptable for the siloviki.
It's not clear to me what you are saying. This is what I got from your post:
'Russia destroys its own pipeline so as to cause fracture in the alliance.' Not sure how is that supposed to work! Care to explain?
Also, would Russia blowing this constitute an act of war on Germany by Russia? Is that like Putin saying "we don't have enough on our plate. Lets go to war with Germany"?
Russia is the -loser- here. Why is this not clear?
"'Russia destroys its own pipeline so as to cause fracture in the alliance.' Not sure how is that supposed to work! Care to explain?"
Sure, just look at this discussion where the majority opinion is that the US or some other western nation did this. This is gold for all the Orbans and Salvinis in europe to change popular opinion.
See, the US wants us to freeze and pay enormous sums for their LNG. Lets go back to our russian friends with their cheap oil and gas. Who cares about those corrupt Ukrainians anyway.
That is right now far more important for Russia than some temporary shutdown of a pipeline that is not in use anyway.
For me the main indicator is that this is a reckless, desperate and somewhat stupid move. The US is none of that things while Russia...
I see: A false flag by Russia, followed by coordinated propaganda, to convince certain European nations that they just got fucked by US. This then results in a change in popular opinion which forces German government to sit down with Russia and beg for forgiveness.
If RF managed to send special forces in that highly monitored and shallow stretch of waters there will inevitably be forensic evidence. How was it done and what clues remain as to how it was done. Can this be sourced then, right to Russia? So there is the competence issue, and subsequent evidence issue. Not to mention, hey, Russia now is at war with NATO. Something that they are clearly, desperately, trying to avoid.
Second, I honestly don't think this propaganda reaches a majority of the targeted nation's population. (Same for our propaganda). There is basically a usual suspects demographic in any society that eats this stuff up. They are not influential, in general. Sometimes, like in the past 2 decades, excesses of the ruling class effective inflate the number of people who flip to a counter-narrative and it can be a force. Is that the situation in Germany?
Next, you and I disagree about the degree in which "popular opinion" has any influence in immediate and short term strategic decision making by governments. Are Germans going to follow the example of Iranians and revolt in the streets? I just don't see it.
(Long term, sure. Public opinion matters.)
~
"the US wants us to freeze and pay enormous sums for their LNG."
Btw, this is not what US wants. It's not the money. We print that shit since our CB is blessed by heaven so we can print without consequence ... until we lose global power.
No. US wants the EU dependent on energy flows that are subject to the famous "Anglo-Saxons". That would keep EU in line.
This would not lead to war with NATO. Russia already has used nerve agents and radioactive poisons on european soil without much consequences.
The only consequence would be some contradicting statements: We didnt do it, but here is evidence that the US,UK..... spiced up with a video of some CoD game footage showing scuba divers.
Thats the other part of the cui bono argument. What happens if you get caught? That would be pretty devastating for the US who tries to hold this coalition together through the coming winter but for Russia its nothing. There will always be enough doubt, that they themselves created, for them to continue unabated.
I can see some baltic or polish actor doing this but 2:1 my money is on Russia.There have been some suggestions in this thread that the pipelines might be completely destroyed. In that case I would have to reevaluate my position. But it seems to me, that would be a rather fragile pipeline if any wrong anchoring or earthquake could destroy it.
This is not an act of war with Germany. This happened in international waters. The pipeline is already shut down. This does not affect Germany's gas supply, as they were already receiving no gas from Nordstream 2.
Additionally, the assumption that Germany would declare war on Russia unilaterally over something like this is flawed. Sure, if this were a verifiable and identifiable attack on German territory, maybe. To suggest that any attack on international infrastructure in international waters with no mechanism for identifying the actor is intended to do anything other than instill fear is mistaken.
I think it depends on how they want to take it. NS ownership is apparently is Russian state property and German private firms. So if an attack then an act of war on Russia and depending on how a German government looked at it either a loss of private property or an indirect blow to German state itself.
It can be construed as such, but certainly not by Germany. They are not strong enough to make a stink about it. Powerful states can take offense at the smallest thing. Weaker nations put up with lots of shit. (Is not, for example, what is done to Russia economic warfare? Do you see them declaring war? No. Because they are weaker.)
So boundary of what constitute an act of war is somewhat fuzzy not completely crisp.
> This happened in international waters.
Yes, and NATO waters.
> The pipeline is already shut down. This does not affect Germany's gas supply, as they were already receiving no gas from Nordstream
Addressed multiple times in this thread. Options closed. Decision trees altered. Game theory.
p.s.
A nice map to go with this thread. The remaining functional gas pipelines from Russia to Germany both go through Poland and Ukraine. Both Poland and Ukraine have 'difficult' relations with Germany and 'hostile' relations with Russia.
The Lusitania had nearly 1,200 of its passengers killed when it sank. It was clearly sunk by a German submarine. That was a much more overt act of war.
There is no such thing as NATO waters, only the territorial waters of NATO members, who must choose to invoke Article 5.
In the sense that it is chuck full of NATO military naval bases and must be monitored extensively.
I had the same thought regarding passengers as you when posting that item, so your point is well taken. It was in the sense of it doesn't have to be state property: anything that ultimately is deemed a malicious act directed at a nation.
>Russia's greatest leverage was Europe needing their gas, and eventually agreeing to stop supporting Ukraine in order to get the gas turned back on.
That boat has sailed some time ago - you don't need to destroy something that's guaranteed it won't be used for decades probably, if ever again.
No country in the West will do any trade with Russia under Putin. There's simply no turning back when you throw diplomacy and international laws out the window, and hide under nuclear threat.
In my point of view this was clearly a message that ANY gas that passes through that sea might have the same faith - even in NATO territory.
It's hugely positive for Ukraine. They'd have done it on day-one if it wouldn't have looked bad. Less income for Russia, less for Russia to divide its allies with.
This is a strong negative for Russia. They had control of the pipeline and thus could dangle the offer of gas, now they cannot. Their leverage is gone.
Europe needs gas. Russia has gas. If EU citizens get cold enough and broke enough, they could entice their governments to give in and stop supporting Ukraine and get their gas turned back on. Idk about you, but if it came down to my grandmother freezing at home or a Ukrainian grandmother living in east Ukraine having to say she's now Russian, the Ukraine grandmother is going first.
I'm no expert in geopolitics, or international law - but what country would make any deal with the current Russian government?
A government that held the energy sector as an hostage to pressure other countries while they violate international law.
Do you see any possibility of everyone sitting at the table, sign new treaties on top of those that were violated, or new contracts that were torn? Because I don't.
There's no credibility left on one side - Russian government openly stated that they do what ever they want, and no law applies to them because they have nukes. What government on their right mind would do any deal with them? Besides China, India, and Afghanistan, that are getting great deals out of this, while remaining neutral.
>If EU citizens get cold enough and broke enough, they could entice their governments to give in and stop supporting Ukraine and get their gas turned back on.
Whatever may come, we've had it much worse in the past, and we made it through. I doubt anyone will freeze to death, like the propaganda is spreading, at worst some people won't be very cozy.
>Idk about you, but if it came down to my grandmother freezing at home or a Ukrainian grandmother living in east Ukraine having to say she's now Russian, the Ukraine grandmother is going first.
Sometimes it's about doing the right thing, even if it has a cost. You might not want to pay the price, others are, because it's better to stop the warmonger now, than latter at a MUCH higher cost. We should have done it in 2008... or 2014... now we're paying the price for it.
Ukraine has a sea coast and a Navy, so I have no doubt that they have combat divers. Thus the only issue would be a logistic one. My take is that it is trivial to send people to the Baltic along with access to diving equipment and boats. Via sea route it should also be very doable to ship explosives.
Any sort of underwater demolitions is pretty much the opposite of "trivial". How much diving have you done? The real world isn't like a James Bond movie.
I didn't say that underwater demolition was trivial.
I said that they surely had military trained in that sort of thing. Actually they even seem to have a 1st Underwater demolitions Unit, so...
It's getting those people to the Baltic that seems trivial to me. That does not mean I am accusing them, but that means they are on my list of suspects.
It's still possible enough for a nation that splintered off a previous world superpower. It's not like Soviet combat divers and their expertise just up and disappeared once the union dissolved in the 90s
BUDS is literally that, every SeAL does that. Not optional.
Not accusing the SeALs just the force I'm most familiar with.
A pipeline is impossible to guard so it's so so easy, it's a cakewalk. The real challenge is the impunity, you don't want to get accused like eg Allended accused CIA of blowing up its pipelines in Chile (gasoductos y olioductos) and the train line. It's a one-dimensional structure that is vulnerable along the entire distance, and more valuable the greater the distance it covers, so more valuable as it is more vulnerable.
Really to protect a one-dimensional resource conveyor, you need retal. There's nothing else. Everybody talks about protecting themselves, yeah and what wear a helmet to cross the street? No, no helmets! Yeah then make the pipeline's steel a meter thick, to protect it.
Retal.
America does that, when terrorists blow up its pipelines in Iraq for instance, they hunt them down and make them regret doing so. Not say they're sorry, make sure it turns out to have been a bad decision in hindsight. Those pipelines don't need to be any thicker. It's the thickness of the initiator's skull that must be overcome.
I'm fairly certain that BUD/S doesn't cover diving to the depths of those pipelines. Initial SEAL dive training is focused on open circuit compressed air and oxygen rebreather equipment. Deep, covert demolition missions like this would likely have to be done on a Mk16, and most SEALs lack that specialized training. I doubt the US Navy actually sabotaged those pipelines, but if they did then the diving was more likely handled by EOD or MDSU personnel.
Dude it's no problem. EOD can do it. SeAL can do it. Like splinter cell unit of the Army can do it. Every nation can do it. I could learn to do it in high school. Any diver. Anybody. Easiest shit. The issue is not getting caught. Not like diving a mile down like the guys at oil platforms, gotta live always under pressure, 80 meters, easy shit. And the difficulty is depressurizing, not pressurizing. And like 200 meters below sea level you go into like a trance...eh. Still can accomplish the mission, if they can translate into trance-ease.
It's nothing. Not a whole lotta guards from the Kremlin with their evil faces like movie bad guys (they're never not the bad guy) the whole time watching over the pipeline, let me tell you.
They do 100x harder shit than that every day. Navy SeALs are in 40 countries on any given day, that's just SeALs. Like no risk of death from that, no risk of needing to use SERE training, NOTHING, BUDS, basic underwater demolition, EASIEST SHIT!
This entire war has been an exercise in Ukraine using other people's resources to attack Russia. If they wanted to I'm sure the US and Ukraine could figure out how to get this done.
Because it’s a war of one-sided aggression. The rest of this comment tree indicates a tendency on your part to minimize that, so I’m providing the counterbalance.
During the entire war, Ukraine has only conducted a few small attacks on Russia. Almost all of their attacks have been on invading Russian troops inside Ukraine.
You are forgetting - A civil war of Western Ukrainians vs the Russian Eastern Ukrainians has been burning at varying levels of intensity for a number of years, which started with a US supported coup that overthrew a pro-Russian elected leader [1] (Article biased in favor of Western Ukrainians but gives a good picture)
Western Ukrainians firebombed Trade Union with the ~300 Ethnic Russians (Eastern Ukrainians) in it, and they were burned alive, in Odessa. [2]
Your take on Odessa is wrong on so many levels. For starters, the total number of people who died there was 45, not 300, and most of them weren't ethnic Russians, but rather locals (who are mostly Ukrainians, even if many of them are Russophone) who supported Yanukovich. Neither did it happen out of the blue - it was preceded by street fights involving firearms (and some of people carrying those firearms were later in the Trade Union House), said fights triggered by an attack by a pro-Yanukovich mob on an anti-Yanukovich protest.
Ukraine has active natural gas pipelines running through its territory right now. Why not blow those up? Would be easy enough to claim a stray Russian artillery strike missed and hit a pipeline.
Remove its only leverage is in Russia's interest? Until now, there was a possibility that EU get tired and get bend over. Now that possibility is gone.
That possibility is long gone. Damaging the Nord Stream pipeline however gives Putin reason to continue to not supply gas (rather than flat out breaking existing contracts) hence maximising the possibility for civil disruption in Europe over the Winter. The less gas there is in Europe the more chance of this occurring. No one knows for sure at this point but all these comments on this thread that there isn't reason or motive for Russia to do this is complete nonsense.
87.7% of EU gas storage is filled[1]. Which is pretty close to how it is usually every winter. Germany is at 91%.
Russia wasn't supplying gas via Nord Stream 1, claiming it needs maintenance and sanctions preventing this maintenance. Which is well...true[2]? Six turbines were stuck in Canada due to sanctions.
There are many ways to not supply gas to Germany and not break the contract that does not involve damaging nearly 20 billion dollar infrastructure (NS1 + NS2).
There a reasons and motives to do so, buy IMO none of them outweigh the damage.
> That possibility is long gone.
No, it's not. You contradict yourself in the very next sentence.
I'd vote for Russia too, not direct evidence obviously but makes more sense than anybody else. Elites who decide see that EU wants and will cut itself off from Russia anyway, just a question of when and its coming soon. So harsh punishment of this pesky EU right before winter starts to feel the consequences of daring to break away from Russian dependence.
Russia made tons of money in past months on oil and gas due to elevated prices. Money ain't what they need desperately now, rather massive civil unrest in EU to weaken Ukraine support and punish. Those who decide have stellar-size egos which are getting continuously humiliated by recent development. Don't underestimate pettiness of a ego-maniac person who has tremendous power and thinks about themselves as somebody larger-than-life and on a life mission. Anyway financial consequences of not selling gas anymore won't affect anyhow the folks on top, and clearly russian population is just cannon fodder for them.
Its political and military move. Realistically only US and Russia have the capacity to do 3 attacks like this simultaneously. This all benefits US too in some ways, but if I have to decide between those 2 options, for me personally its a no brainer.
Has anybody checked Russian reaction? Sometimes its quite obvious from how they say things / what they don't say whats really happening and how much they actually care. For me its not easy to see this in western media and I don't speak russian to check source directly.
This makes zero sense to me. What does Russia get by destroying their own pipeline? If they wanted to shutoff gas, thats just a turn of a valve.
Russia looses massive leverage by no longer being able to deliver gas, even if they wanted to.
Prior to this, if the public got cold enough, they could tell their government "forget Ukraine, we need gas. Go agree to get it or we will vote you out ASAP". Now.... There's no point in settling anything with Russia, since you're not going to get their gas anyway.
People need to stop thinking of 'Russia' (or any other country for that matter) as a single monolith. For example, a possible motive that may be bad for Russia but good for Putin is that maybe he wants to deter any would be assassination attempt coming from within the Kremlin by making it abundantly clear that there will be no going back to business as usual if he was to be eliminated. Blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines is a very good way to achieve that.
We as regular citizens have limited info, really we don't know what's going on. But don't assume it definitely isn't Russia because of whatever reason that happens to seem plausible to you.
This could be the same for the US or Ukraine. So considering that, all things being equal, it sounds pretty terrible for the main Russian goals, so I'm going to say no it wasn't Russia.
Nobody knows what the "main Russian goals" are. I mean, I'd hope that nobody is taking this whole "denazification" business seriously.
There's a very real possibility that the actual goal of this entire mess is/was for Putin to get into the history textbooks as one of the great Russian leaders before he dies from cancer (or whatever it is that he has).
This is exactly the same point the previous poster made. Sure we don't know the real hidden motives of Russia or Putin, but you could say the same for the US and Biden. So ignoring crazy random guesses, you can say that all things being as sane as you'd hope they are, Russia destroying their own ability to say "if you agree to this or that, we will turn back on the gas flow you need to provide affordable energy to your citizens" would be pretty foolish.
On the other side, Ukraine destroying the pipeline and making sure EU members don't give it to Russia in order to restore the flow of gas makes pretty good sense.. as long as you don't care about the EU citizens.
I was countering the idea that was being repeated throughout this thread which was "of course it couldn't be Russia who did this, it is they who stand to benefit if it is functioning". This conclusion is errorsome for all kinds of reasons as there are plenty of motivations for why Russia and more specifically Putin would do such a thing.
4. Gazprom needs to pay financial penalties to companies that signed contracts with them because they have stopped supplying gas, now they can claim force major situation and extend this indefinitely due to lengthy trials
If they just turn a valve, they break contract. If they pipeline blows up, its force majeure.
They can still pump gas using the other pipelines (yamal etc). But they will shut down all of them eventually. Why? Because they are past the point of no return.
A decent portion of EU citizens think going without Russian gas is a terrible idea. And that's this summer. Just wait until it gets cold.
Going back is very easy. Most of the public wants to go back, and you can go back.
You keep asserting in this thread that most EU citizens want to get russian gas right now. This doesn't really correspond with what I perceive in my country or understand to be the case in the rest of the EU... Do you have any public polling to back this up and are you talking about any regions in the EU in particular?
> Realistically only US and Russia have the capacity to do 3 attacks like this simultaneously.
I'm no military expert but why? From reading about the pipeline, sections of it are between 80 meters and 110 meters deep which technical scuba divers can reach and the subsea blasts were equivalent to 100kg of dynamite.
Seems to me basically any country could wrangle up a decent sized boat, a few technical divers, 3 100kg bombs, and some time delayed chargers and planted bombs on the pipelines weeks or even months ago.
> Its political and military move. Realistically only US and Russia
> have the capacity to do 3 attacks like this simultaneously.
No need to do 3 attacks simultaneously. An attacker could have placed explosives there some time ago and the detonated it remotely now.
Formar Naval Special Operator and now teacher in marine engineering and doctoral student at the Swedish Försvarshögskolan, Patrik Hulterström, alleged that "An experienced diver can in theory manage it himself" according to https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/4ozy8o/orlogskaptein-tr... ( in Norwegian).
> An experienced diver can in theory manage it himself.
This is incorrect for a different reason and it has nothing to do with capability, but instead, deniability.
Anyone could do it. But deniability and covertness is different.
Deniability for this requires covert operators with access to a top notch with great submarine with excellent acoustics (really lackthereof) for an underwater insertion and recovery.
Ding Ding Ding.
Suddenly the list of countries capable of doing became a great deal shorter
